Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union v Aurizon Operations Ltd

The Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union contested Aurizon Operations Ltd’s accreditation status modification decision made by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR). The issue before the court was whether the Chief Operating Officer’s decision to alter the accreditation status without consulting the Union was lawful. The court had to decide whether the decision-maker had committed a jurisdictional error by misconstruing the Rail Safety National Law 2012 (NSW), particularly sections 99(3)(a)(iii) and 99(3)(a)(i), which outline the requirements for consultation and the scope of the decision-maker's authority.

The court examined whether the decision-maker misapprehended the nature of the opinion required by misconstruing the consultation requirement. It found that the term “representing” in section 99(3)(a)(iii) did not imply entitlement to representation by a union, but rather actual membership. The court also considered whether the consultation with “persons likely to be affected” as per section 99(3)(a)(i) should have included all persons working at the railway premises or with rolling stock, not just those conducting railway operations. The court determined that the decision-maker had misconstrued the scope of the consultation requirement, which led to the conclusion that the decision-maker had acted outside the bounds of their jurisdiction.

The court further assessed whether the decision-maker’s conclusion that the plaintiff had no members among the affected rail safety workers was unreasonable or irrational. The decision-maker had disregarded emails indicating that the plaintiff did indeed have members involved in the work in question. The court concluded that the decision-maker's factual findings were not unreasonable or irrational, but the misconstruction of the statutory provisions amounted to a jurisdictional error.

The court ruled that the decision-maker’s misconstruction of the Rail Safety National Law led to a jurisdictional error, as the decision-maker acted as a “statutory tribunal” and was not empowered to determine the scope of consultation requirements. The decision-maker’s error in construing the statutory provisions resulted in a decision that was otherwise than in accordance with the law. Consequently, the decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the decision-maker for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings.